Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/26/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall January 26, 1998 6:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, I. CALL TO ORDER Major James Torrey called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 6:30 p.m. He noted Councilor Tim Laue was excused. II. CITY MANAGER EVALUATION PROCESS Mr. Torrey recessed the meeting for five minutes to allow the council to review a series of questions distributed prior to the meeting related to the City Manager's evaluation process. Mr. Torrey asked the council to consider the following series of questions: 1. Witt the evaluation be in open or executive session? City Manager Vicki Elmer indicated she would be willing to conduct the evaluation in open session. City Attorney Glenn Klein reported that since the manager requested an open session, the council had no choice but to hold the evaluation in open session. Mr. Meisner asked if each councilor would complete a preliminary, individual evaluation of the manager. Human Resource and Risk Services Director Lauren Choinard said that the answer to the question was up to the council, noting that the preliminary evaluations would be subject to the Oregon Public Open Meetings Law. Mr. Torrey said that alternatively, each councilor could be interviewed by a facilitator. Mr. Meisner indicated his preference for a written evaluation to be included in the public record. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that as a preliminary step in the evaluation process, each councilor prepare an evaluation based on the same questions it would evaluate as a council. Ms. Swanson Gribskov observed Mr. Meisner's proposal mirrored the previous process. She reviewed the process used for the six-month evaluation. She had no opposition to written MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 1 6:30 p.m. evaluations and indicated her support for a public session. She suggested that a facilitator, if selected, could conduct individual interviews with councilors. Mr. Tollenaar indicated tentative support for the motion but said he would like the professional advice of the facilitator on the subject. Mr. Meisner said that the motion would help determine the facilitator's role. He did not want a consultant to decide if the council prepared individual written evaluations. Ms. Nathanson said that it was difficult to discuss the motion out of context with other decisions related to the evaluation, such as whether a facilitator would be hired. She was concerned about the cost of the process and the possibility that there would be several layers to the process. Mr. Meisner did not favor individual consultant interviews with councilors because of the time it would add to the process, and said he would accept a friendly amendment that written evaluations would be done in lieu of individual interviews. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated her opposition to such an amendment. She suggested that the council address the questions sequentially and discuss the kind of process it really preferred. She said that she would like some help in the process from a professional. Mr. Farr said that he wanted to fill out a written evaluation. He believed it should be based upon the council's previous evaluation of the manager. He thought interviews by a facilitator would be essential to the process, and the written evaluations would assist the facilitator with the interview process. Roll call; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 2, Do we want to use a facilitator for the evaluation? Mr. Farr spoke in favor of a trained facilitator to help the council get through many details in a short time. Mr. Tollenaar said that the decision about the manager's tenure was the most important that the council had the opportunity to make. In this case, he favored the use of a third-party facilitator to implement the evaluation process. Ms. Nathanson said that she would follow the recommendation of Mr. Farr and Mr. Tollenaar, but wanted more influence over the choice of facilitator and the cost of the facilitator. She said that the organization often seemed to use professional consultants without oversight by the council as to cost and choice of the facilitator. Mr. Meisner concurred, adding that there was a difference between a process facilitator and a trained professional evaluation specialist. If the council decided on the latter, it should be clear about that fact. He added that it might take more time than the council envisioned to hire such an individual. Mr. Lee stressed the need for council control of the process. He said that the council should decide on the questions and the process created. The process should satisfy all eight councilors and the mayor. He said that the council should be responsible for contracting for the service, and indicated a desire for more discussion of that process if the council chose a facilitator. Mr. Farr agreed. He said that the council could hire a consultant directly. Mr. Farr suggested that the council employ a Request for Proposals process using the City's current list of contractors and MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 2 6:30 p.m. winnow that list to fewer candidates. Lauren Choinard, Human Resource and Risk Services, anticipated that process could take two to three weeks. Mr. Torrey favored a process that could be completed by the end of February. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the council must be confident in the consultant it hired. She said that the council's goal was a quality performance review, and cautioned the council against getting too involved in the process. She believed that the council could weigh the advantages of the available consultants and get on with the process without getting caught up in process details. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not think that a consultant would represent an excessive cost, and said that the council should not be "penny wise and pound foolish" in this instance, given the relatively Iow cost of the consultant as measured against the City budget. Ms. Taylor did not think the council needed a facilitator for the process. She suggested that the mayor or council president could moderate the discussion. Mr. Meisner said that if the council was capable of evaluating a consultant, perhaps it was capable of conducting an evaluation without a facilitator. He asked Ms. Swanson Gribskov if it was her professional judgment a facilitator was needed. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said yes. Mr. Farr reiterated his support for a facilitator and said that if the council chose to change directions it would need assistance in that effort. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had a list of sufficiently qualified candidates. Mr. Choinhard said that there were few such qualified individuals in the City's vendor files. He estimated that there were perhaps a dozen such individuals specializing in such work. Mr. Torrey did not think an evaluation of the City Manager and skills was purely a public sector issue. He said that there were qualified people in Eugene who did such work, and hoped the council would not preclude such people from offering their assistance. Mr. Meisner concurred. Mr. Lee said that it was important that someone helped the council gather the needed information and make a decision. He said that the "tail should not wag the dog," and the council should retain direct control of the process. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that being a public sector manager evaluated in open session was different from being a private sector manager. She cautioned the council to consider both that and the pressures that can be created by the media in such a situation. Mr. Tollenaar indicated his wholehearted concurrence with Mr. Lee's remarks. He said that the council needed someone to help it communicate about the issues of concern to it. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Tollenaar. He did not think that the council needed a top flight consultant with expertise in city manager evaluations. The consultant was not doing the evaluation; the council was. He suggested that the council needed a moderator rather than a facilitator. Mr. Torrey suggested that the council president, vice president, and mayor serve as a committee to review potential facilitators and make a recommendation to the council. He believed that MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 3 6:30 p.m. would require legal counsel's assistance. Mr. Klein indicated his role as City Attorney would be to draft the council's agreement with the consultant and ensure that the contract does what the council stipulated. He said that he would be happy to assist the council. Ms. Taylor said that if the council must have a facilitator, it should hire an expert facilitator or the council should facilitate the process itself. Ms. Swanson Gribskov liked the mayor's recommendation and said she had confidence in the mix of individuals involved to come up with an acceptable recommendation. The council unanimously accepted the recommendation of the mayor. The council agreed that the remaining questions related to a specific consultant were moot because of the decisions made previously. 6. On what date will the evaluation take place? Mr. Torrey recommended that the evaluation be tentatively scheduled for February 16 and postponed if necessary. Mr. Lee suggested that the council not set the evaluation date at this point. Mr. Torrey asked the council to tentatively hold February 25 for the evaluation. The council concurred. 7. Do you want evaluation remarks from the executive and division management levels of the organization? Mr. Torrey favored eliciting comment from staff as background. Mr. Meisner agreed. He said that he would like evaluative remarks from both division and executive management staff, and wanted evaluation by the unions and line staff as well. He said that if that required a survey of every City employee, he was prepared to go forward with that. He wanted staff to feel included in the process. Mr. Lee agreed. He said that his suggestion was to create a survey of employees that might differ somewhat from the survey of senior executives. He said that it would de-politicize the evaluation to have the facts. Mr. Lee offered to help develop the survey. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, that the council conduct a survey of employees. Mr. Tollenaar had no objection to surveying the employees but did not see how it fit into the council's time frame for evaluation. He questioned how reliable such a survey would be if the return was not large. Mr. Lee suggested the results would indicate patterns of concern and give the council information about what is occurring internally. Ms. Elmer reported that staff was considering a climate survey of the organization. Tony Mounts, Administrative Services Department, said that he had examples of two climate survey instruments. It would be necessary to review the instruments to make sure they fit the council's information needs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 4 6:30 p.m. Mr. Fart favored conducting a climate survey but was concerned about opening the evaluation of the organization's chief executive officer to employees "on the street." He believed that many such employees would have difficulty evaluating the manager. Mr. Fart suggested that the climate survey would indicate the morale of the organization and be a valuable tool. Ms. Swanson Gribskov had no problem with staff involvement but preferred conducting a climate survey. She said that the manager worked for the council, and the council has asked her to make unpopular decisions. She did not want the survey to turn into a "popularity contest." She believed it was natural that morale would go down in an organization that has gone through the level of change this organization has experienced. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said there were standard survey instruments available in the marketplace that could be used. She said that how the data was assessed was key for her. Mr. Meisner said that a climate survey might be acceptable, but he believed that there was some element of conflict given that the manager had already planned to conduct the survey. He said that it would be awkward for line staff to fill out a survey for the City Manager for use by the council. Mr. Meisner did not want the evaluation of the manager filtered by the manager. Ms. Elmer said that the climate survey was likely to be conducted by an outside party. She suggested that outside party could contract with the council. Ms. Elmer believed the data would be valuable to both the organization and council. Regarding Mr. Fart comments regarding the ability of line staff to evaluate the manager, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the evaluation team that went to Berkeley to make a site visit when Ms. Elmer was hired as manager made a point of seeking out street-level workers in her department for an evaluation of her work. He asked why it was irrelevant to ask the City's street level employees the same questions. Mr. Fart thought the circumstances were different. He said that, whereas the people who work on the street are fully equipped to comment on how the City Manager's decisions have filtered down to their level, they were not really equipped to comment on how the manager performed on a day-to-day basis. He believed the climate survey would give the council valuable information. He did not want to ask line staff if they agreed with the manager's decisions. Mr. Tollenaar said that the council did not need to decide if it wanted the climate survey at this point. He was not prepared to decide about the survey now. Mr. Tollenaar suggested another question for the council: What will the outcome of this evaluation be? He believed there were three potential outcomes. The council could decide that, given the information available to the council, the manager was doing a good job and the council stood behind her. The council could decide the manager's performance needed improvement, with specific directions and a specific time frame for improvement. The council could decide that the situation was not working out and fire the manager. Mr. Lee agreed that the issue of the survey could be postponed. He suggested that as soon as a consultant was selected, the council consider the issue again. Mr. Torrey said that the council officers could indicate to the consultant that the council was very concerned about the need for employee involvement at some level. He said that the consultant may have a recommendation about the topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 5 6:30 p.m. Mr. Lee wanted to communicate with as many groups and individuals as possible. He said it was important to demonstrate to the public and the organization that the council was willing to cast a wide net and see what it caught. Continuing, Mr. Lee said he would be concerned if the council chose the second alternative cited by Mr. Tollenaar because it had already told the manager that improvement was needed. If there were additional areas of improvement identified, that would be a problem for him. Mr. Lee said that the council either supported the manager or it did not. Mr. Fart said that the issues raised during the last evaluation should be addressed, but he pointed out that the manager had only been on the job for eleven months. He said he did not have a clear idea of how Ms. Elmer would perform in a stable environment. With the exception of Ms. Taylor, who did not support the third alternative, the council concurred on the three alternatives offered by Mr. Tollenaar. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Elmer City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) r:1998~adm~cis~cc980 ~ 26m ~. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1998 Page 6 6:30 p.m.